Can We Trust Nuclear Power Again After Chernobyl? [4K] | Nuclear 2.0 | Spark 

We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life many times over in the hands of some of the most irresponsible people, but folks are worried about some of the most responsible people furthering nuclear energy development to save life on this rock as we know it. Confusion is what happens when emotion and partisan politics gets involved in just about anything.

Yes. Saved you 48 minutes there.

Chernobyl did not have a containment dome ,ok .Our containment domes here in the U.S have 4 ft thick concrete with 2 inch rebar woven through them . Inside you find redundant systems upon redundant backup systems in case of an event .All our plants are run by procedure. The Chernobyl event happened because they were performing a test outside of procedure. They basically had a vessel in the ground with a steel lid on it. And when it got out of control they couldn't shut it off and it blew that lid a mile high,spewing out acute radiation.

We always have been able to trust it, it's clean energy it produces a whole lot of energy, and meltdowns aren't common in newer nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is the future. Chernobyl was an example of the operators being forced into doing many, many things wrong...AND: Not having a true containment building was just stupid, and could never be approved (even in Russia) today.

Yes. Uranium (Nuclear Power) is currently the most viable option to provide baseload electricity to meet global electrification demand.

13:30 is where the nuclear discussion starts

I'm on a huge learning about nuclear power kick right now!! I want to watch these with my 3 kids!

Build it to modern safety standards, don’t put it on a seismically unstable island and actually maintain it.

it's literally the safest, least deadly form of energy

Nice to have a realistic appraisal of Nuclear and why it needs to be prioritised now. The benefits of 4th generation Molten Salt Nuclear are especially exciting for safety, cost, speed to implement and scalability once over half dozen designs get through R&D when Western governments reset regulatory requirements due to their inherent safety.

Nuclear energy is extremely safe and the best form of energy for us and this planet

It's weird how we set ourselves on fire over NP risk when no method of energy production has a lower mortality rate. Most of my life I had thought that NP was unacceptably dangerous until challenged to examine my assumptions about what I thought I knew about it with evidence. To my surprise what I found was that my beliefs had been formed by popular culture instead of evidence and data. I hadn't even bothered to fact check what I thought I knew about it because we all "knew" we were right.😳 I found out that instead of being unacceptably dangerous NP is actually remarkably safe compared to the alternatives. The most catastrophic incidents of nuclear are dwarfed by most catastrophic incidents of other energy forms. When we only look at the risk of NP in a vacuum, ignoring the risks of the alternatives, we are failing at risk assessment.

We'd better. Solar and Wind aren't gonna cut it.

Im not gonno bother watching the video. The answer is yes, it is statisticcaly the safest energy. End of story.

Nuclear is the way to go and safe.

This is why we need to invest in modern advanced nuclear energy options. Small form reactors, LFTRs, Thorium Reactors, liquid reactors, with modern technology, engineering, material science, safety measures understandings and designs, computer technology, robotics, It will really allow any nation to be pretty much be energy independent. Less reliant on fossil fuels. They'll have efficient, stable electrical grids and the rest of the grid could experiment with alternative power sources, etc.

I think it’s worthwhile for countries who use nuclear power to continue to do so. Upgrade the plants, it’s the waste that’s an issue and will continue to be so until a more secure solution is developed.

In Europe we only get negatives from going full on renewebel, price has been rising for years. I live in Belgium and we have nuclear power plants but our government is planning to replace them with gas, at this time this is unthinkable and to me it's unacceptable. For Australia new nuclear power would be great and realistic to actually be spice stable and reduce emissions

I truly believe we learned from our mistakes. As far as Japan goes you really can’t prevent natural disaster. I guess location would be key!!

It is not a question - can we trust nuclear power again ? - It is a question if we can manage and keep control with those whos in the command / control room and who doing maintenace . Nuclear power as such is not that dangeros as long as ALL safety procedures is at place and nobody violate them . As for our future right now , urning more fossil fuel is not good , because it will keep increase the global warming . Hydro power can only be archived in countries who have mountains and river ect , so many countries cant get it . Solar power only work where there is sunshine and that mean in the western countries they are of limited use in winter and cloudy days . Ok we can put them in the many desserts , yes that is one solution . Wind energy only work when wind blows , but as with solar energy is a tool we can still use . Both have the problem that we need to have some sort of power storage so we can still get energy when they are not running at full capacity . Those are indeed great technologies but not alone and here is where Nuclear power is i fact a good thing in combination with those other alternative sources . Until we have other options for power , nuclear power is actually our best solution for a large amount of power in a relative clean way . Storage of the nuclear waste is a problem but the Chinese is very close to have a good solution . They have for some years experimenting with Nuclear Power Plants that can run on the waste from the conventional ones and after burning that fuel in a special reactor it is no longer that dangerous . Now storage doesnt have to be so long time and radiation from the waste is drastically reduced too . We as humans have to use what we have right now and at the same time develop new better technologies . I just wish they could spend all the money they use on stupid wars on solving our planets problems .

As of today in California outside of the remaining Diablo Canyon there is no other baseline power available. Also the amount of power from natural gas is the greatest amount of supply and a final thought batteries recharging 2,000 MW drain.

It's the best answer for our power needs till cold fusion or H3

Excellent video, thanks!

Yes we need nuclear energy and yes we have to study nuclear science more. We must create an fusion battery if we are to halt climate change. Creating an nuclear fusion battery will help with space travel has well.

No power plant can be 100% safe no matter what fuel is used.

Clickbait title. We have been using it around the world ever since just fine.

A new documentary on nuclear energy is call Nuclear Now. Produced by famous film director Oliver Stone.

Chernobly was an old design badly run, Fukushiama was caused by a natural disaster. Nuclear is the only way to go ( it might be the way we, go by Nukes ) It would have been useful to have a financial expert on who would have given us the effect of recession on global C02 emissions.

go nuclear go. it feels good to be from Ontario thank you. I have thought it was ridiculous to see people with loud mouths and lots of fear win. go nuclear go . I live in between Pickering and Darlington and I wish for more. Cheap power equals jobs equals happy people or citizens

This is like asking if Responsible people should be able to use drugs on occasion in my book. Nuclear is the safest least polluting best output energy source hands down. The soviet union was not known for safety procedures. Did they even have an OSHA equivalent or was it just another corruption wing?

Wind and solar are supplemental at best to fossil fuel not to mention the irregularities in terms of their quality

Yes we can! Nuclear Energy is by far the best source of energy we currently have! Most of the worries about Nuclear are propagated from movies, video games and Chernobyl. Which are the complete opposite of "safe" use of Nuclear Energy! Nuclear is the best option we have!

Can we trust nuclear power after Chernobyl?... YES, 100% YES!

What I wish is 4,000 small modular molten salt thorium reactors were put in that are breeders and will use the waste fuel from pressurized water reactors as feed fuel to get started. The 9nly question I have is what type of high temperature bricks to use as liners for the vessel. Probably highly compressed aluminum oxide bricks would let these reactors run 50 years with almost no shutdowns for any reason much less refueling. With super critical co2 the turbine could easily spin 50 years with no shutdowns and be 1/8th the size of turbine needed for a gigawatt reactor. To lower the cost of electricity and process heat for plastics and pharmaceuticals lowering the cost of fertilizer by 1/2.

Co2 is a building block of life

Would have been nice to have a little real discussion of the issues that are always mentioned by nuclear opponents, given the video title. Chernobyl was a man-made disaster. Even though the reactor is flawed in some ways compared to western designs, it would not have happened if the operators weren't running some dubious experiments with most of the active safety measures disabled. Using it as a reason to oppose nuclear power is like opposing cars because a lunatic drives into a crowd. Idiots and lunatics will always find ways to harm others and abandoning a technology will likely not reduce that harm in any way. Fukushima caused orders of magnitude less physical harm than the tsunami that caused the reactor failure. Most of the damage was in the minds of people who are simply incapable of truly understanding risk, danger and physical harm in any meaningful way (which, let's face it, is the vast majority of people).

I'm not even watching this. The answer is yes.

In spite of all the horror stories supposed to happen, they really haven't. Nuclear power is a story of technology. It is going to be a major part of our future. We can grow up or be forced into massive acquisition.

We use too much electricity. Maybe rationing could be used in some way to limit the total.

Thanks!

Yes we can have complete trust in Nuclear power

Here's a logical idea, use new nuclear power plants to power the making of solar and wind power equipment (and tidal etc).

We should be pouring money in to nuclear power using Thorium as the primary fuel source because the fuel cycle results in far less and safer waste that will not require as long of a storage life, safeties that can be built into the reactor itself from the outset and the benefits of consuming currently stored Urainium waste as additional fuel which will go a long way to reducing current storages. People raise problems with the MSR's design etc but they're not physics problems but an engineering problem which can be solved.

There are tons of solar panels in California and STILL there are conserve electricity alerts on high use days, blackouts and brownouts. So even with all the electricity being put back in the grid by solar panels on 1.3 MILLION homes in California, there's still an energy supply issue. The state closed the San Onofre nuclear power plant located between Los Angeles and San Diego leaving just one nuclear plant for the entire state!

We need to get away from pressurized water. PBRs and MSRs are the way forward with fission. This needs to be a national priority over PVs and windmills.

Don’t use electricity! Use charcoal!

If you look into the details of Chernobyl, you learn the failure was self caused by a “ test “ to see how long the reactor could run without cooling . This “ test “ was conducted by a team who were not the normal nuclear workers.

We shouldn't trust dangerous power plants we don't need. We don't need nuclear power plants but we keep building them regardless of danger and lack of need. The Edison generator and dynamos power plants are adequate replacement with inverters and transformers as usual for power plants.

The new technology that current regulations keep from being used would end our pollution from energy problems. There is even a nuclear generator that uses the radioactive spent fuel rods from older generations of nuclear plants.

Using Chernobyl as a reference , it was the worlds worst Nuclear disaster, and it has a 30km exclusion zone........Australia is a big place......I am sure we can find a place 100kms away from the population if that's what it takes to calm there masses.........its people cutting corners that make nuclear energy "dangerous" ......it can very easily be made safe.....very easy....it has come a long way since 1986

The problem is the type of reactor, with ours there's a huge risk of accidents...with thorium reactors, security is far jetter, but reactors are less effective : 3 thorium for 1 uranium...

I beieve the answer is yes. The RBMK reactor is a bad design, exacerbated by Soviet incompetence. We use an entirely different design and our nuclear technicians better-trained. Our need for energy is only going to increase as time goes on. Renewables cannot fill the breach quickly enough and come with their own issues. We already see probems with hydro in the Southwest as reservoirs like Lake Mead in the US dry up because of overuse and drought. Despite what alarmists might think, the US nuclear industry has a good safety record (3 Mile Isand was the worst large scale reactor accident we've had. Of course one should not build in areas where there are seismic hazards--Australia has large areas of cratonic rock which tend to be stable seismically and geologically, so it has an advantage there. I beileve the US (and other countries as well) need to seriousy consider making nuclear either part of their power generation mix or a larger percentage where nuclear is aready a part of the mix.

Simple answer: yes

Can We Trust Planes Again After Tenerife?

Every kWh we consume from nuclear energy is a kWh less for a nuke.

Talking about Chernybol an acquantance went through the ex-Soviet Union after that accident to see if he could improve the safety of their Nuclear Plants. He was horrified at the lack of safety but worked with other Nuclear Engineers to bring those plants up to safe standards. Unfortunately he has since died or I'd ask him to write his own piece with his experiences. But the world's Nuclear Power Stations along with the new safe Nuclear Power plants need an International Safety board with examimers ging around to keep everything safe. The Japanese plant had a another plant along the coast better built that suffered no ill effects from their Tsunami. More people died from being moved than from teh radiation there by the way. People who flew out of Tokyo to get away from the accident suffered more radiation form the aeroplane flight than from the accident. It was a case of hysteria. The new safer smaller Nuclear Power plants ae now being produced by Rolls Royce and others. It is repored they take about ten months to build and place.

I think We can trust it, as an italian common citizen, but Politicians think the opposite! We'd think about our future!

It is very disappointing how many people are terrified of clean, safe nuclear power. One thing I slightly disagree with in this video is putting nuclear power stations right beside high power demand industries. If people were not afraid of nuclear, I would agree BUT... People are afraid of nuclear power and scaling up nuclear power is quite efficient. As a result it makes sense to at least consider placing nuclear power stations far from human centers and to simply scale them up by the necessary percentage to handle transmission losses.

The best solution for the future of power in Europe and worldwide is the installation of Molten Salt Reactors, thorium looks best. The technology was developed in the 1960s in the U.S. at Oakridge Nuclear Facility. They had one running for 35 years trouble-free until lack of interest defunded it. The Light Water Uranium Reactors were favored because they provided fissile material for nuclear weapons more readily. for Heavy Water Molten Salt Reactors are safer than the Light Water Uranium type because the molten salt provides both the heat and cooling factors so if there is an event it would cause the molten salt to drop in temperature and the plant shuts down automatically. There can be no meltdown. They are 97% efficient compared to the 3% efficiency of Light Water Reactors, so they can actually burn the nuclear waste of those types. They produce so much cheap electricity that projects like decarbonizing oceans and desalinization can be done simultaneously. They don't depend upon water for cooling so they can be built anywhere. They don't require a huge conducting system of massive cables from a wind or solar field because they can be built on present coal or light water locations at or near the source of use. Also, science has developed hydrogen fuel cells that can use iron instead of platinum, making fuel cells for cars and homes feasible. The solutions are here. All that is needed is for politicians to notice and unite to make what could be the quickest transition in the direction that could truly take the world into a better future.

Edison generators and dynamos power plants with inverters and transformers equal nuclear power plants.

Sound effects were so loud at times I couldn’t make out what the people were saying.

Why not use something more recent, like Fukushima?

What about the Westinghouse AP1000 which soon will have a fleet of ten reactors...

Fairy Tails down the end of the garden path.

Great video! We need this to keep out grid stable as we replace the coal fired units. I would not hesitate to retrain for operating a nuclear reactor instead of a boiler to drive turbo generators

25.000 year for plutonium and uranium waste, 500 - 700 year for thorium waste, take a pick people, take your time (if not leaked into ground water first)

I was very surprised to hear for the first time that the Gen-4 nuclear plants will produce waste that is safe after 30 years. Is that true? It certainly is not being talked about in other nuclear news or videos on nuclear waste. Does the waste need additional processing plants that have already been tried and failed? Why are countries still talking about burying their waste in deep holes if it can be recycled easily?

Let's make sure we don't build them on top of or near major earthquake faults where they can be hit with tsunamis, like the geniuses that built Fukushima.

Just call it a green fission plant.

Imagine of all the top nuclear scientists from all over the world build modular safe reactors suitable for different situations and replace all coal thermal plants in India China Australia and generator based power middle East etc That would be led by rich countries and billionaires would be a huge difference for climate and the way I see it it's the only way forward so hopefully like these smart scientists everyone else shd recognise this huge potential and come together

Almost 15 min in and still not a single mention of nuclear. More then enough propaganda for me. Waist of my time. Im here to hear about nuclear. Not your fear mongering.

SMRs We are actually going to experience a massive population decline. As more and more of the worlds populations modernize the birthrate goes down and we are currently not even at a replacement birthrate.

Controlling the weather is currently beyond human capability. While we can influence localized weather conditions through activities like cloud seeding, manipulating weather on a large scale requires an understanding of complex atmospheric. The data that you have from February to June of 2020 you have e so many sensors all over the world which can help you understand the atmosphere processes which can activate the ecosystem. This time period was profound in that prior to this quarantine period we could only speculate what would happen in we reduced our carbon foot print and now after that you have a real life scenario , energy resources, and advanced technologies. As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, we do not have the means to fully control or manipulate global weather patterns. It's important to note that discussions on this topic often involve ethical, environmental, and practical considerations.

What we should be doing to build loads of nuclear power plants, then use the excess power for carbon capture and storage.

Because some people some countries just do not care about it at all.

`After Chernobyl` ? You mean all the current waste depositories and old power stations left to rot away right now ?

Australia has committed to buying eight nuclear powered submarines employing highly enriched fuels. These will be stationed in places like Newcastle. It makes sense now to buy some more reactors to.power the grid, this would be a much more useful application of the technology.

You have to take in mind, that soviet or russian technology isn't very advanced not to mention that chernobyl was using way different cooling rod system, as all of russian powerplants

We need Thorium reactors!!!

Research STOPPED in the early 90's Imagine when the funding is cut

I wanted to watch a documentary on nuclear power. What I got was a political psa on “climate change”. An inconvenient truth about this video is it blows.

We must build Thorium Fueled, Liquid Salt, Nuclear Reactors (aka LFTR), which do not create radioactive waste, CO2 or micro particulates. There is sufficient thorium on Earth to fuel these power stations for 100,000 years.

Instead of building tons of coal based plants or relying on foreign countries for energy supplies.....build your own nuclear plants. So simple.

What's Fukushima?

now you are taking forget about the batteries ...total failure

Chernobyl was a steam explosion caused by human error & Fukashima was a hydrogen explosion - neither were nuclear explosions

It’s never the plant, it’s the workers and systems and policy’s.

Short answer: yes.

Not after Fukushima and their way of dispose of nuclear sewage

Its probably for flying people to space.

There are 440 nuclear plants operating right now. Anybody worried about failures?

Nuclear nonproliferation treaty has a reason. We have agreed not to build develop or share nuclear technology. Not just nuclear power or nuclear power plants but all nuclear technology. Why is nuclear technology so dangerous and what.dies nuclear technology and nonproliferation treaty have to do with global warming? Nuclear cascade and ozone cascade are related. What is the global warming aspects of these violations of Treaties instituted by scientists to initiate survival. ??

save yourself an hour: yes we can

Molten Salt reactors are safer, yes. But the waste heat problem is still with us. Waste heat is worse for nuclear reactor-generated power than for any other method in use today. Waste heat given off by nuclear power generators is instant, not delayed as in greenhouse gases emission from other methods. Anyone think of that before they do a cost-benefit analysis? Apparently _not_; disgusting.

Dont hire cowboys to operate the wheel and we should be fine tbh

ABSOLUTLEY ! 😁

Relying on global nuclear-power is horrific.

Yes, you can.

The sharing developing and building nuclear technology is illegal under nuclear nonproliferation treaty enforcement and obligations. The USSR and the USA agreed to this Treaty obligations and enforcement. It is absurd to assert that nuclear technology is safe or that you are immune to Treaties because you are not a military organization.